It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What writers are you talking about?
Originally posted by Malcram
When you have highly qualified writers who are senior members of the Fire Service and who also actually work directly for FEMA calling the manual in question "FEMAs Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", then you can be consider that pretty good evidence.
I would doubt it because none of those people represent FEMA.
Why would you doubt it? Especially as you also have the researchers of the Cometa report and of the History channel and of ABC news all coming to exactly he same conclusion and all calling it exactly the same thing?
The problem is that I do not know if those people consider it a "FEMA manual", they may have used that name because all people use, I have seen it happen many times, and you probably have also.
With all due respect, seeing as far more qualified and knowledgeable people - with regard to this specific issue - definitely consider it a "FEMA manual", then it doesn't really matter what criteria you claim would satisfy you, if any. The evidence is there. There is no real reason for you to dispute it.
And if it's not a real FEMA book? Why do you think it was removed (if it was really removed)?
I already answered these questions earlier in this thread. It would be in there because it was a real scenario firefighters might have to face, and, if I recall correctly, already have, according to the author. If it was removed (I haven't seen evidence of this, as yet, I'm still looking) it was likely because it garnered too much media attention.
That is true, it caught my eye, so stop "abducting" my eye, if you please.
I like it as it is, I'm afraid. It's eye catching. It caught your eye anyway
I mean that the only evidence that has been presented that this is a FEMA book (endorsed, approved or whatever) is that people call it "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control".
Originally posted by platosallegory
What do you mean just one piece of evidence?
I have not done anything more on this thread because there is nothing I can do on this thread to try to know the truth besides asking questions.
You or anyone else has not presented any evidence. You have not done anything but ask questions.
Anyone can ask questions ad infinitum and anyone can state what they want ad infinitum also, neither of those actions will get us closer to the truth.
Anyone can ask questions ad infinitum if you remove reason and logic.
OK, if you consider that people calling it the "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" is evidence that this book is from FEMA, do you consider that the book is called "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" is evidence that this book is not from FEMA?
You or nobody else on this thread has presented evidence that says anything different.
I am not expecting that, that is why I am making my own investigation.
People don't have to bend over backwards to try to find more evidence so that you and others can keep asking for evidence.
How do you know that? Were you one of the people from ABC news or do you have evidence from ABC news that the reason they made that segment was because FEMA said that the book was approved or endorsed by FEMA?
ABC news did a segment on the book and there wouldn't be a segment if FEMA would have said the book is not connected to us and it's just 2 firefighters.
I am working on it.
People have presented evidence and you and others have presented nothing.
If you don't consider the lack of references to FEMA in the book itself as evidence, I don't see what else can I find (with links and videos) that you can consider as evidence.
You think if you ask questions that's being skeptical.
It's not being skeptical if you exclude reason and logic.
Originally posted by ArMaP
What writers are you talking about?
And if it's not a real FEMA book? Why do you think it was removed (if it was really removed)?
That is true, it caught my eye, so stop "abducting" my eye, if you please.
"I asked if FEMA had officially approved the 1993 version of The Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control, as was reported in the January 1995 issue of Omni Magazine. But Goodman insisted, speaking very slowly so I wouldn't miss a word, "FEMA does not now or never has as far as preparedness, response and recovery, or any other arena, dealt with the subject of UFOs."
"It's all hush-hush as we track a secretive global paper trail, delving into government plans on how to deal with other-planet visitors. Searching historical records, we find that protocols are in place--from the U.S. military's JANAP-146 reporting requirements to France's Cometa files, from Chapter 13 of the FEMA Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control titled "Enemy Attack and UFO Potential", to a now-repealed federal law titled "Extraterrestrial Exposure".
"The documentary shows an American disaster control manual that was once used in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Fire Training Academy Open Learning Program. The 1993 manual is called Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control. It contains a shocking chapter about how "first responders" should manage incidents involving UFOs."
The problem is that you want me to come to what you consider a reasonable conclusion and consider, apparently, all other eventual conclusions as absurd.
Originally posted by platosallegory
If you can't come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence then in the end that's your problem.
I did not said that everyone is lying (why most people insist that I say things I do not say?), I just said that when people use that name it does not mean that it is the official name, they may just be repeating what they have heard before, people do that constantly, with all types of things.
There's nothing else that can be offered. If you think everyone is lying and you have not presented any evidence that counters the evidence presented that's just silly.
I don't know if you noticed, but I stopped asking some pages back.
You can keep asking for evidence but it's meaningless because evidence was presented.
Now who is being repetitive?
If you have evidence that counters the evidence that has been presented then let's see it.
Just asking questions because you think that's being skeptical is nonsense.
Present some evidence and I could come to the conclusion that it's not from FEMA.
That is why I did not said it, if you read all my posts I never said that this is not a FEMA book, I asked (but I am not asking again, so please do not answer if I was asking for it) for any official reference because I doubt it, not because I think it impossible or a lie.
I think it's silly to say it's not from FEMA when no evidence has been presented to support that assertion.
To me it has, that is why I ask it.
Originally posted by platosallegory
You are asking a question that has no basis in logic.
The lack of evidence that this is really from FEMA, because, as I said, I haven't seen any reference to that made the book's authors or by someone representing FEMA.
There has been no evidence from you or anyone else that it's not from FEMA, so what are you basing your question on?
The problem is that, in this case, and from what I have seen, what is happening is that someone else is saying that you are 6 feet tall, and they show me papers and videos of other people saying you are 6 feet tall, but from a photo of you I see nothing that shows you as being 6 feet tall, so I try to get that information from you (probably the best source) or for the people that measured you.
If I say I'm 6 feet tall and I show you video and papers that say I'm 6 feet tall and you just keep asking for evidence then it's just silly.
No, I hardly have time to keep up with the posts on ATS, but I try to, but I try to get confirmation of all data for which I see opposing versions and that I find interesting enough to invest my time on.
Do you follow every astronomer and look into each observation?
Do you call the guy/girl behind each physics paper to see if they wrote it?
I only asked for evidence on my first two posts, and as I said before, I will post any evidence that I find about it, there is no need for you to repeat that in every post you make.
Again, if you have evidence that this is not from FEMA then let's see it. We can weigh it but without a basis for your question it doesn't make sense. You can ask for evidence until your blue in the face. It doesn't matter unless there's counter evidence that shows this is not from FEMA.
Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by LoneGunMan
What on earth are you talking about?
You have acknowledged the manual as "FEMA guidelines".
You have said you had to study it.
You have seen that a highly experienced member of the Fire Service with FEMA connections calls it "FEMA's "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", as do Cometa and the History channel.
So what on earth is your point?
The evidence is staring your in the face!
Are you now claiming you and fellow firefighters have never heard of the "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control"?
Your only valid claim seems to be that the UFO chapter was there but has since been removed. Fine. lets see some proof. It doesn't change anything regarding what was said above.